







o 






> 






^/ 'life'- V* - 








SPEECH 

OS 



HORACE EVERETT, 



O F V E R M O N T : 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, 



OK 



THE INDIAN ANNUITY" BILL, 



Friday, Jlne 8, 1886. 



W ASHINGTON; 

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER OFFICE* 

1836, 



S P E E C H. 



Mr. EVERETT said, he had not expected to address the House on any 
subject connected with our Indian relations until a few days ago. The in- 
quiry into the causes of the Indian hostilities had been brought before the 
Committee on Indian Affairs, and the papers relating to it had been referred 
to him for examination. He had intended before the close of the session to 
present his views in the shape of a report. When, however, this amendment 
was adopted in that committee — an amendment placing at the disposal of 
the Executive more than a million of dollars, for the removal of the whole 
Creek nation by force — in violation of an existing treaty, — he had felt him- 
self compelled to change his purpose, and to present his views to the House 
whenever that amendment should be considered. Should that pass, a report 
would be to but little purpose. 

He regretted that this extraordinary appropriation should have been at- 
tached to an ordinary appropriation bill. It placed him in the dilemma of 
being charged with obstructing the passage of the bill, of the urgency of 
which no one was more sensible than himself; or with the responsibility of 
permitting a measure to pass in silence, which, in his conscience, he believed 
repugnant to our most sacred obligations, and of the most hazardous tenden- 
cy. He had desired that this appropriation should have been reported in a 
separate bill. Had it been so, this bill would have passed as soon as it was 
reported, and all delay would have been avoided. He did not, therefore, 
consider himself responsible for the delay. This was not the first time that 
important measures had been attempted to be carried through on the back 
of a general appropriation bill. The House was sufficiently forewarned of 
the consequences. The blame would rest on those who first interposed the 
obstacle, Mr. E. said, the country being in fact in a state of war, without 
stopping to inquire by whose fault we had become involved in it, he had 
voted for every appropriation asked for defence — and as soon as it was 
asked. But the present question relates to the future—and to consequences 
which demand that it should not pass without investigation. 

Mr. Everett requested the Clerk to read the twelfth article of the Creek 
treaty of the 24th of March, 1832. 

" Art. 12. The United States are desirous that the Creeks should remove 
to the country west of the Mississippi, and join their countrymen there; and 
for this purpose, it is agreed, that, as fast as the Creeks are prepared to emi- 
grate, they shall be removed at the expense of the United States, and shall 
receive subsistence while upon the journey, and for one year after their arri- 
val at their new homes: Provided, however, That this article shall not be con- 
strued so as to compel any Creek Indian to emigrate, but they shall be free 
to go or stay, as they please." 

This, Mr. Chairman, is the obligation we have assumed; this is the right 
we have guarantied to every Creek Indian — to go or stay, as he pleases. 
To render this right of value, to enable the Creeks to subsist themselves where 
they were, if they chose to remain, the treaty secured to ninety principal 
chiefs, each, 640 acres of land, and to every other head of a Creek famih 



4 

320 acres. These reservations are their homes, on which they are entitled 
to remain. But from these, it is now proposed to remove them by force. 

The amendment proposes to remove 21,000 Creeks; that is the estimated 
number of the whole nation. It does not, in terms, propose to remove them 
by force; that purpose is, however, avowed explicitly in the letter of the Sec- 
retary of War to the committee, asking for the appropriation; and if the ap- 
propriation is granted, the Executive will consider himself authorized to use 
it, and will use it for the purpose for which it was asked. This letter is dated 
on the 19th of May, and states: " The state of affairs among the Creek In- 
41 dians in Alabama has induced the President to direct the necessary meas- 
" ures to be taken for their removal. Heretofore, the instructions have been 
" in conformity with the treaty — to remove them as they were voluntarily 
" prepared to go. But actual hostilities have commenced, and it is essentia! 
" to their existence, as well as to the safety of the settlements in contact with 
" them, that they should be established in their country west of the Missis- 
" sippi, without delay. The right to remove them by force, if necessary, re- 
" suits from the attitude in which they have placed themselves, by the com- 
" mencement of hostilities," &c. 

Here, then, Mr. Chairman, is our treaty obligation on the one hand, and 
the power claimed on the other. On what ground is it claimed] It can be 
claimed only on the ground that the treaty is dissolved by a war on the part 
of the Creek nation. An act of hostility by an individual, or one of the 
bands of the tribe, would not have that effect. No, sir; it must be a war be- 
tween the Creek nation and the United States; that only would dissolve the 
obligation of the treaty; and before this House sanctions the exercise of this 
high power— this war power, of removing the whole Creek nation by force — - 
it should be satisfied that the Creek nation has made war upon us, as a na- 
tional act. On what evidence is this House called upon to act? On a letter 
from the Secretary of War to a committee, stating that actual hostilities have 
commenced, unaccompanied by any evidence of the character or extent of 
those hostilities. It gives us no facts, on which his declaration is founded, to 
enable the House to judge if the right to remove the Creeks by force is justi- 
fiable. Are we to act on this declaration'? Are we to collect our facts from 
newspapers, private letters, or rumors'? and if we should, what do they all 
amount tol From no source, that can be relied on, have I sufficient evi- 
dence to believe that, at the date of this letter, any white man had seen 
twenty-five Creeks embodied in arms. True, this is no evidence that 
more have not been in arms. But I should not be surprised if it should 
turn out that the whole number was then less than two hundred and fifty. 

There is, however; some negative testimony. I will refer the commit- 
tee to a semi-official publication in the Globe, of the 30th of May. It 
states that " Colonel Hogan wrote, on the 24th of April, that there was no 
" more disposition among the Creeks of the upper towns for hostilities than 
" there was among the citizens of Washington, and that he did not believe 
" there was any such disposition among the Creeks of the lower towns." 
This letter was received here on the 5th, and " on that day Governor Clay 
" was again informed, that, should the Indians meditate hostilities, any force 
*' he might find necessary to call out for the protection of the inhabitants 
" would be received into the service of the United States. The same in- 
" formation and the same authority was given to Governor Schley, on the 
" I3th of May." This is the account of the Indian hostilities, as published 
on the 30th of May. The orders to the Governors of Alabama and Georgia 
do not refer to actual hostilities, but to meditated hostilities. 



5 



But, sir, if a state of war exists, why has no communication of the fact been 
made by the President? I do not go the length of saying there should be no 
communication between the heads of the Departments and the committees of 
this House. In matters of minor consequence, convenience requires it. But, 
sir, on questions involving a change of our relations with nations with whom 
we- have treaties — on questions of peace and war-— I hold that a head of De- 
partment and committees of the House are not the proper organs of commu- 
nication between the Executive and Congress. Such communication should 
be made by the President, and to both Houses, to whom it appertains to take 
order thereon. Measures new and important are not to be sprung upon the 
House through a report of a committee. The President is the only constitu- 
tional organ of communication between the Executive and Legislative Depart- 
ments. It is his constitutional duty, " from time to time, to give to Congress 
" information of the state of the Union, and to recommend such # measures as 
" he shall judge expedient." Sir, I would hold him to this duty — to this re- 
sponsibility. , If the House acts on its own motion, on its own information, it 
acts on its own responsibility. That responsibility, for one, I am not willing, 
in this instance, to assume. 

Mr. Chairman, I now offer an amendment, as a substitute for the amend- 
ment of the committee. I do not propose to lessen the appropriation, but to 
restrict its application. I do not make it a question of amount, but of prin- 
ciple. I am willing to give to the Executive ample means to remove all the 
Indians, but propose to divide the amount so that a part shall be applicable 
to the removal of those who please to go, and the residue to those who may 
be in arms; but that no part shall be applicable to those who are neither hos- 
tile nor willing to remove. This amendment will be applicable to the Semi- 
noles, as well as to the Creeks, and will also enable the Executive to resort 
to pacific, as well as warlike measures, for their removal. 

The amendment, as it came from the Senate, was for a removal of the 
Creeks who should voluntarily assent to go, and was based on the removal 
of 12,000. 

For this purpose, in addition to an unexpended balance of $155,000 
It appropriated the sum of 348,230 

503,230 

To this, the committee of the House have added, under the 
call of the Secretary of War, on an estimate for remov- 
ing the residue of the nation, - 675,320 - 

1,178,550 

And to this may be added, for the removal of the 

Seminoles, an unexpended balance of - - $33,000 

And an additional appropriation of 100,000 

133,000 



Making for the removal of the Creeks and Seminoles - $1,311,550 

Should the substitute be adopted, the amendment will stand: " For the 
removal of Creek Indians, and their subsistence for one year, including sub- 
sistence for those recently removed, in addition to one hundred and fifty- 
five thousand dollars of former appropriations, three hundred and forty- 
eight thousand two hundred and thirty dollars, under the 12th article of the 
Creek treaty of 1832, 



6 



" For holding treaties with the hostile Indians east of the Mississippi 
river, and for their removal west of that river, six hundred and seventy -Jive 
thousand three hundred and twenty dollars." 

Mr. Chairman, this presents the important question in relation to all the 
hostile Indians, Creeks and Seminoles:— Shall force be the only means of 
effecting their removal? I propose a pacific measure; and by the term in 
the appropriation, "for holding treaties,'" to indicate to the Executive the 
opinion of this House — in the hope that it will not be disregarded. 

It seems to be taken for granted by some gentlemen that we cannot, corn 
sistently with our national honor, hold treaties, or even attempt a pacification 
of hostile Indians. It is said by the gentleman from Alabama, (Mr. Lawler,) 
that they must be whipped before they can be removed. What, sir! send 
whipped Indians west of the Mississippi! Of that I shall have a word to say 
hereafter. Qur honor! What of honor have we gained already in our attempt 
to whip the Seminoles? And what of honor would be gained, if, by extermina- 
tion, we make a grand finale of the hostile tribes? But, sir, this is also a 
question of interest. I will thank the Clerk to state the amount already ap- 
propriated on account of these Indian hostilities— [$2,620,000, besides ra- 
tions to the starving inhabitants]— more will be immediately required. Add 
to this the expense of another campaign— of an army of 5,000. And to 
this, the amount of the losses of the inhabitants of Florida and Alabama- 
some millions more. This, though an individual loss, is not the less a loss 
to the country. Possibly it may become a direct national loss. On that 
question I do not intend to commit myself; but, sir, if the sufferers claim in- 
demnity, they will, as their only ground, base their claims on the fact that their 
loss was occasioned (to use the mildest phrase) by an improvident act of the 
Government. In addition to all this, look to the'loss of human life. 
^ It is evident, sir, that the Seminole war was the immediate cause of the 
Creek hostilities. Other causes have no doubt concurred — causes of irrita- 
tion, producing a pre-disposition to hostility, called into action by the suc- 
cess of the Seminoles. What shall be done? Shall we fight it out to the last, 
or attempt a pacification? Sir, in selecting our course, much will depend on 
the answer to the question, " is our quarrel just?' 1 And it is time this ques- 
tion was answered. 

In answering this question, I shall take occasion to inquire into the 
causes of the Seminole war. I shall stop where the war commenced, leav- 
ing it for others to examine into the manner in which it has been conducted. 
I pass this over to the military gentlemen of the House— to the Committee 
on Military Affairs— to institute the proper inquiry. I have no doubt they will 
do their duty. 

Preliminary to the investigation, I will suggest two considerations, which 
should be borne in mind during the investigation. The first is, the unequal 
terms on which we always treat with the Indian tribes— our superior intelli- 
gence—their necessities— the fact that our treaties are, as they say, white men's 
treaties, made in our language, translated by our interpreters, and by them im- 
perfectly understood and imperfectly remembered. The other is, that we 
are our own historians— we tell the whole story— they, particularly the Sem- 
inoles, were refused permission to send a delegation here to tell their pan of 
the story. In reply to their application, they were told, " This made the 
President angry." From considerations such as these, in all questions of 
doubt, proper allowances should be made in their favor. 

I will also notice some things of minor importance, which may have had 
an unfavorable influence i 



7 



The eager desire of the whites to obtain their land. — General Eatori, in 
his letter of the 8th oi* March, 1835, says — 

"The people here want the lands on which they (the Seminoles) reside; and they 
will urge a removal, fas aui nefas,- and the Big Swamp, which, in the treaty, is declared 
to be the first of their country to be vacated, is of high repute; and it is that on which 
the eyes of speculators are fixed." 

The unprincipled desire to obtain their ttegroes.— General Thompson, in 
his letter of the 28th of October, 1834, says— 

*' There are many very likely negroes in this nation; some of the whites in the adja- 
cent settlements manifest a restless desire to obtain them; and I have no doubt that 
Indian-raised negroes now in possession of the whites, some of the negroes in the 
nation, with some of the Indians, have been induced, by bribery or otherwise, to stir 
up hostility among the Indians to the intended emigration, for the purpose of detain- 
ing the negroes here until the territorial jurisdiction shall be extended over the Indian 
country, so as to enable fraudulent claimants to prosecute their claims in the Territorial 
courts, &,c." « 

The opposing influence of the negroes, excited by the fear of their being 
sold to slave-dealers. — General Thompson, in his letter of the 27th of April, 
1835, a letter of great interest, says — 

" Application was made to me this morning for permission to purchase negroes of 
the Seminole Indians, under a letter from the Office of Indian Affairs, addressed to 
General Call, in which the Commissioner says, as there is no law prohibiting the sale of 
slaves by Indians, there is no necessity for the interference of the Department to allow 
the Indians a privilege which they already have." "The negroes in the nation dread 
the idea of being transferred from their present state of ease and comparative liberty, 
to bondage and hard labor, under overseers on sugar and cotton plantations. They 
have always had a great influence on the Indians. They live in villages, separate, and, in 
many cases, remote from their owners, enjoying equal liberty with their owners, with the 
single exception that the slave supplies his owner annually, from the product of his little 
field, with corn in proportion to the amount of the crop; in no instance that has come 
to my knowledge, exceeding ten bushels: the residue is considered the property of the 
slave. Many of these slaves have stocks of horses, cows, and hogs, with which the 
Indian owner never assumes the right to intermeddle. I am thus particular on this 
point, that you may understand the true cause of the abhorrence of the negroes of even 
the idea of any change; and the indulgence so extended by the owner to the slave will 
enable you to credit the assertion that an Indian would almost as soon sell his child as 
his slave, except when in a state of intoxication ." 

On this occasion, sir, General Thompson did his duty — he refused permis- 
sion to the applicants to purchase slaves, or to say any thing on the subject. 
The answer to this letter is not among the papers in my possession. 

In this investigation, 1 shall endeavor to confine myself to our own record. 
I regret, sir, that the documents just laid on your table are not printed, and 
in the hands of all the members, that they might go along with me, page by 
page. I desired that the discussion should be delayed a day or two for that 
purpose. But it is the pleasure of the House that the discussion shall now 
proceed. 

On the 8th of January, 1821, the Creek treaty of Indian Springs was con- 
cluded. At that time the Seminole band was a component part of the Creek 
nation. To this treaty I shall have occasion to refer hereafter. 

On the 18th of September, 1823, the treaty of Camp Moultrie was con- 
cluded with the Seminoles, they having then separated from the Creeks. By 
this treaty, we engaged to pay them annuities for twenty years, and guaran- 
tied to them their narrow limits. They were restricted from the sea-coasl, 
and confined to the hammocks and swamps, which they are now defending to 
the last drop of blood. Miserable as their country is, they cling to it with the 
grasp of death. This treaty, unless abrogated by a subsequent treaty, was 
an existing treaty at the commencement of the present war. 



8 



On the 9th of May, 1832, the? Seminole treaty of Pavne's Landing Was 
concluded. The Seminoles have alleged that it was forced upon them. But, 
sir, in our own story I find no evidence of the fact; all that I find is, that at 
that time they were in a state of starvation; -we deemed it a fit occasion for 
holding a treaty. We were not, however, the cause of their famine; nor 
were we accountable for its consequences. We did no more than to take all 
due advantage of the fact. 

I ask the Clerk to read the preamble and the 7th article: 

"The Seminole Indians, regarding with just respect the solicitude manifested by 
the President of the United States for the improvement of their condition, by recom- 
mending their removal to a country more suitable to their habits and wants'than the 
one they at present occupy in the Territory of Florida, are willing that their confiden- 
tial chiefs Jumper, Fuch-a-lus-ti-co-had-jo, Charley Eroartia, Coi-had-jo, Holati- 
Emartla, Yaha-hadjo, Sam Jones, accompanied by their faithful interpreter, Abraham, 
should be sept, at the expense of the United States, as early as convenient, to examine 
the country assigned to the Creeks west of the Mississippi river; and should they be 
satisfied with the character of that country, and of the favorable disposition of the 
Creeks to re-unite with the Seminoles as one people, the articles of the compact and 
agreement herein stipulated at Payne's Landing, on the Ocklewaha river, this ninth 
day of May .one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, between James Gadsden for 
and m behalf of the United States, and the undersigned chiefs and head men for and in 
benalf of the Seminole Indians, shall be binding on the respective parties." 

"Article vii. The Seminole Indians will remove within three (3) years after the 
ratification of this agreement, and the expenses of their removal shall be defrayed by 
the United States; and such subsistence shall also be furnished them, for a term not ex- 
ceeding twelve (12) months, after their arrival at their new residence, as in the opin- 
ion of the President their numbers and circumstances may require; the emigration to 
commence as early as practicable in the year eighteen hundred arul thirty-three (1833-) 
and with hose Indians occupying the Big Swamp, and other parts of the country, be- 
yond the hm.ts as defined m the second article of the treaty concluded at Camp Moul- 
trie creek, so that the whole of that proportion of the Seminoles may be removed 
Within the year aforesaid; and the remainder of the tribe, in about equal proportions 
durmg the subsequent years of eighteen hundred and thirty-four and five, (1834 and 

In relation to this treaty, I shall now, Mr. Chairman, endeavor to sustain 
the three following positions: 

tt 1 ^ th ? treat ^ "fiver became obligatory on the Seminoles. 

II. lhat the Government have attempted' to execute it contrary to their 
own interpretation. 

III. That they have attempted to execute it by an act of war, before the 
commission of any hostile act on the part of the Seminoles 

If I sustain these positions, I shall have shown, satisfactorily, the causes of 
tnebemmole war; and answered the question, "is our quarrel just?" 

The treaty of Payne's Landing never became obligatory on the Semi- 
noles, J 

1. Because the condition precedent, on which alone it could become oWhr- 
atory, was not fulfilled. 

That condition, in substance, was, that the Seminole delegation should 
after visiting the western country, be satisfied with the character of the coun- 
try to which they proposed to emigrate; and, also, of the favorable disposi- * 
tion of the Creeks who were entitled to the country, and with whom it was - 
proposed they should hereafter reside,) tore-unite with the Seminoles as 
one people. 

The delegation visited the western country, and, before their return, or bar- 
ing any communication with their tribe, on the 28th March, 1833, at Fort Gib- 
son, signed articles with our commissioners, by which they expressed themselves 



9 



satisfied with the character of the country, and of the favorable disposition of 
the Creeks to unite with the Semi notes as one people. This, on the face 
of it, with the exception of the change of the word unite for re-unite, is a 
literal declaration of what was required by the treaty, But was it a substan- 
tial compliance'? was it an act of which, in good faith, we ought tofavail our- 
selves] Is the complaint of the Indians without cause? General Thompson, in 
his letter of the 28th October, 1834, states it in their own language: " Jum- 
" per says, they agreed at Payne's Landing to go and examine the country; 
66 but they were not bound to move to it, until the nation should agree to it, 
u after the return of the delegation." 

The delegation were their confidential chiefs— the agents of the Seminoles; 
or, if you please, umpires authorized to determine for them. But, sir,^ were 
not the Seminoles to be heard before them, as well as the United States] 
They were not heard. The delegation went to visit the west, and there, be- 
fore returning to consult the Seminoles, surrounded by the whites, signed 
their determination. The Seminoles complained, and with justice, that the de- 
termination was made on an ex parte hearing. On their return, the delegation 
reported that they were satisfied with the country, and the Creeks there. 
But their objection was to the hostile disposition of the surrounding tribes 
—that they saw scalps brought in. They were then told, treaties would be 
made with the hostile tribes, of which they would be informed. Sir, they 
claimed a right to be heard, before their delegation made a final decision. 

But, sir, this is not the most material part of the objection. A part of the 
condition was, that the delegation should be satisfied with the disposition of 
the Creeks— -of the Creek nation to re-unite with them as one people. I 
now ask the attention of the committee to the facts. 

By a treaty concluded with the Creek nation east of the Mississippi, on 
the 24th March, 1832, almost cotemporaneous with the Seminole treaty, the 
country west of the Mississippi was secured to the Creek nation. The emi- 
gration commenced; and it appears, by a document annexed to the report 
of the Committee of Indian Affairs of February, 1834, that the whole number 
of the Creeks who had emigrated to the west was only 2,459, while the num- 
ber remaining east was 22,638. The assent of the delegation to the supple- 
mental treaty, declaring themselves satisfied, was yielded on the 28th March, 
1833; they had, therefore, consulted only this small portion west. This was 
known to our commissioners at the lime, and to our Government before the 
ratification of the treaty. This is no technical ground of objection. But a 
consequence resulted, "that formed a substantial reason why the Seminoles 
should decline to emigrate. 

While a component part of the Creek nation, the Seminoles were a sepa- 
rate band, and, as such, were united with the Creeks. The treaty of Payne's 
Landing contemplated a reunion— not an amalgamation. By the treaty 
concluded with the Creeks west, on the 14th February, 1833, and the sup- 
plemental Seminole treaty of 28th March, 1833, the Seminoles were to be 
located by themselves, and a tract of land was designated for their location. 
Their rights to any location depended entirely on the assent of the Creek 
nation. The Creeks west assented for themselves only; but, in relation to 
this, the Creeks east were neither consulted nor informed. The fact of this 
treaty of the Creeks west was concealed from them. Perhaps the term con- 
cealed is too strong: it was, however, not communicated to them. These, 
as inferences, are drawn from a document which I will now ask the Clerk to 
read. It is a letter from General Eaton to the Secretary of War, of the 8th 
March, 1835, to a portion of which I will ask the attention of the committee. 



10 



thecTeek hnTt^ I^V* f"^ ° f , the3e a se P^ate tract, out of 

me Lieek lands, has been set apart for their homes. There is a ratified treatv in 
your office made by General stokes, Ellsworth, and Schermerhorn, w h the Creeks 
vh ch authorize* the ocat.on. While negotiating with the Indians last year** Twash! 

"? A V?°f th *Vreeksd! S coveredth\ S act, and had sent word J tl e Sern Lot 
nation htl 1 y , W ^ W ! ]lmS t0 PeCeive them intheir ,imits as a Portion o? he p 
too L ISLT? S il? SUffer ] hem e "j°- V ar ^ se P arate allotm ent of their soil. Thi s, 
go off!" ' 1 S * y > the eSSential Cause < )f their reluctance to 

Yes, sir, in the winter of 1834, they discovered this western Creek treaty 
making the separate location: they rejected it; they had a right so to do 
they sent word to the Seminoles that they would not agree to it. 4nd this 
Genera Eaton says, was in his opinion, the essential cause of their refusal 
o go oft. But how was this material? What objection could the Seminoles 
have to an amalgamation with the Creek nation? I ask the attention of the 
committee to the grounds of their objection 

or%KWnttT ty ° f 1821 .' bGf ^ e mentioned ' h was a ^ed that the sum 
of $2o0,0G0 of the money to be paid to the Creeks for the cession of their 
lands should be paid to citizens of Georgia, for property taken or destroyed 
by the Creeks (then including the Seminoles) prior to the passage of the in- 
tercourse act of 1802, and which was accordingly reserved, and subsequently 
paid. The spoliation provided for must have taken place nineteen years 
before tins treaty; and, during these nineteen years, individuals claimed and 
possessed the property originally taken from the citizens of Georgia The 
treaty on the part of the Creeks could never have been intended to disturb 
the rights of individuals of the tribes, or of any of its bands. Between the 
date of that treaty, and that of the Seminole treaty of 1832, no such claim 
was set up. In the mean time, intermarriages had taken place between the 
bemmoles and their slaves The first we hear of any claim was prior to the 
ratification of the treaty of Payne's Landing. General Thompson, in his re- 
port of the 1st January, 1834, to Governor Duval, and by him enclosed to the 
Commissioner of Indian Affairs on the 20th, says: « The principal causes 
which operate to cherish this feeling hostile to emigration are, first, the fear 
that their reunion with the Creeks, which will subject them to the govern- 
ment and control of the Creeks' national council, will be a surrender of a 
^ large negro property to the Creeks as antagonist claimants." " The Creeks' 

, t a XoVlS9r^fV;° W J 0 P ° SSeSsi0n ° fthe S ^"inoles grows out of the 
reaiy of 1821 Tney have an agent now in the Seminole country urging 

the claim of the Creeks to negroes, or their descendants, which formed a 
- SonooT t C ,° nS ; derat ! 0n /? r whi e the Creeks consented to pay the 

$2*0,000 to he Georgia claimants." It will be seen that the claim thus 
brought forward in 1834 referred to transactions of thirty-two years' stand 
mg and was for negroes taken, and their descendants—for the wives and 
children of the Seminoles. 

»hp G !W r T I ^h0 ,«S 0n, h? l eUer t0 , the Commh ^ of Indian Affairs of 
th. 15th July, 1834, again refers to this claim in connexion with the subject 
of amalgamation: "If "as a distinct body, under the protection and control 
« ^ own chiefs located on the territory assigned to them adjoining the 
Creeks, the Seminoles vvould be afraid that a general council of the two 
tnbes would deprive them of the slaves in question, it seems to me that 
their fears could not fail to be greatly increased by a promiscuous introduction 
of them among the Creeks, which would reduce their chiefs to privates, and 

"fSS Tl their . slaves niore ceriai ^y to the entire control of the 
Greeks. I hus, sir, it appears their objection to amalgamation was 



11 



founded on substantial reasons. Nor were they bound by the treaty to amal • 
oamate with the Creeks; nor were the Creeks east bound by the act oi the 
Creeks west, assigning them a separate location. The country west was 
reded to the whole Creek nation; no part of it could be ceded to the Semi- 
noles without the assent of the Creek nation; neither the first ten Creek emi- 
grants, nor the first hundred, nor the first 2,459, had the right to cede the 
whole or any part of the territory. . . 

Thus, Mr. Chairman, it appears, in point of tact, that the delegation signed 
the supplemental treaty, at Fort Gibson, surrounded by our commissioners 
and people, without consulting their tribe; that they never consulted the 
Creeks east; that no location was made that was authorized by the Creek 
nation; and that this was known to the commissioners at the time the sup- 
plemental treaty was signed. In addition to this, that the Creeks east in- 
sisted on their amalgamation, the Creeks west had agreed only to a reunion; 
that the Seminoles^for substantial reasons, refused to amalgamate, and that 
all this was known to our Government before the ratification of the treaty. 
The act, then, of the delegation, however formal, was an act done without 
authority, and, in its operation, in fraud of the rights of the Seminoles. Can, 
then, the United States, honestly or decently avail themselves of this act as 
evidence of the fulfilment of the condition precedent'? 

It should be borne in mind that the question raised is between the parties 
to the treaty, and not between one of the parties and its citizens, or between 
the executive and the legislative power. 

The next objection to the validity of the treaty is, that it was not ratified 
on our part, and an appropriation made to carry it into effect, until two years 
had elapsed; during which period, it was, by its terms, to have been m the 
course of execution. . 

The treaty was concluded on the 9th May, 1832, and was received on the 
29th; and during the session of Congress, which adjourned on the 16th July, 
provision was made for commissioners on our part to meet the Seminole dele- 
gation at Fort Gibson, in October, 1833. At what time either arrived there, 
or for what reason the supplemental treaty, or that with the Creeks west, 
was delaved, does not appear. The treaty with the Creeks west was 
signed at Fori Gibson on the 14th February, 1833, and the supplemental 
Seminole treaty on the 28th March following, and received at Washington on 
the 28th of October of the same year. The Seminole treaties were ratified 
on the 8th and 12th April, 1834. . 

From this statement of facts, it will be seen that the treaty of lbo2 might 
have been ratified in 1832, and an appropriation been made provisionally for 
its execution in 1833. The condition precedent was to be fulfilled by an act 
on the part of the Seminoles, and required no subsequent assent on our part. 

On these facts 1 submit, as an opening argument against tfce validity of 
the treaty, an extract from the letter of General Eaton, of the 8th of March, 
1835, which has been read: 

«I have received vour letter, with its enclosures, relative to removing the Seminole 
Indians, under the provisions of the treaty of 1832, but which was not ratified until 18o4. 
1 nrav vou, does not this circumstance raise a doubt whether, by strict rule, the treaty 
«an be "considered valid and binding? Our Indian compacts must he construed and 
controlled by the rules which civilized people practise, because, in all our actions with 
them we have put the treaty-making machinery in operation, precisely in the same 
way/and to the same extent, that it is employed with the civilized powers of Europe. 
The rule practised upon by us has been, and is, that the ratification shall take place 
Either within an agreed time, or in a reasonable time. When Florida was ceded in 
1819, the Cortes failed to exchange ratifications within the prescribed time, ana attei- 



12 



wards, at a subsequent session, it was assented to bv the Spanish Cortes. The sense of 
this Government was, that the first ratification made by the Senate was inoperative, and 
again the subject was submitted by Mr. Monroe for the action and approval of the 
Senate, rh.s appears to me to be a precedent that runs parallel with this Indian com- 
pact. It says one- h.rd shall remove the first year, viz: as early as practicable in 183S- 
and one-third m the next, and the next, 1834 and '35. Now, until 1834, when the 
ratification took place the treaty was a dead letter. It is in their power now to plead 

wJ ' 3' -Tr, rekdyU1 1833 a "f ' 34; and hea ™* ^thing of your determination; 
ue had a right to suppose you did not mean to stand b V the treaty, and accord- 
inrfy our minds have changed. With civilized nations, I think the plea would be avail- 
able, and, i) so, the Indian should have the benefit of it." 

In consequence of this letter, the subject was referred to the Attorney 
Genera], whose opinion 1 now present to the committee. 

"Attorney General's Office, March 26, 1835." 
"Sib: In your letter of the 21st instant, after enclosing to me a communication of 
Governor Eaton, ,a winch he suggests doubts concerning the validity of the treaty 
with, the Semjnole Indians, concluded on the 9th of May, 1832, and ratified on the 9th 
April, 18,4, ,n consequence of the delay which took place in the ratification you 
requested my opinion upon the validity of the treaty, and upon the right of the United 
States to remove these Indians in the years 1835, 1836, and 1837. 

"There is certainly great force in the suggestions made by Governor Eaton; and as 
the Government, in ,ts relations with the Indians, is necessarily obliged to become 
tor all practical purposes, >ts own interpreter and judge, it is under the highest obli- 
gation to make no claim under the treaty, and to set up no construction of its terms 
which are not fairly authorized by its sense and spirit. And if it can be shown that a 
material change ot circumstances, connected with the question of removal, had actu- 
ally occurred, during the period which elapsed between the signing and ratification of 
the treaty, then ,t is plain that the Indians can no longer be held to it, unless by some 
act since its ratmcat.on they have recognised and affirmed its validity. In the present 
case, as no time was limited for the ratification of the treaty; as the supplemental ar 
t.cles of the 28th March, 1833, treated it as yet in existence, li, hough no^thetr ified 
by the President and Senate; and as no material change of circumstances is suggested 
I think it must be deemed a valid and subsisting treaty. 'ab"^u, 
.''}[ th f ? treat y be , valid > the Particular intent to remove in 1833, 1834, and 1835, must 
yield to the general engagement to remove in three years from the ratification- and 
the same provision must be made for the unforeseen case which has now arisen which 
was expressly made for the case anticipated. It was evidently the understand ng and 
the design of the parties that the removal should commence with the year foKS 
nd The two f' If nd that tnbe Sh ° Uld r 1 em ° Ve in ab0Ut ^ ] P'-portions during thft 
$35, 183oI and ?£?f ^ C ° nS ^ Uent1 ^ the 3' ™ now to be removed in the years 

" B. F. BUTLER." 

I take it for granted that the Attorney General has made the best of his 
case; arid, with great deference, 1 will now proceed to examine the reasons 
on which it is founded. 

1st. "As no time was limited for the ratification of the treaty." But sir 
the time for the commencement of its execution was fixed. The Seminoles 
are to commence their removal in 1833. This could not be obligatory on 
the fceminoles, unless the treaty was also obligatory on the United" States—- 
unless the treaty was ratified. It was undoubtedly contemplated, at the time 
ol its being signed, that it would have been ratified in 1832. It was proper 
that it should have been so done. The stipulations on both sides were set- 
tled. All that remained to be done was to be done by the separate act of 
the fceminoles; it required no assent on our part. Why should they be ask- 
ed to do that act before we had said that, when done, it should be final? 
But, before the ratification, the act of the Seminoles conferred no obligation 
on us to ratify the treaty. Had it been immediately ratified, the Seminole 
delegation must, if they wished to hold us to the treaty, have done the act 



13 



required in season to have commenced the removal in 1833. It it was their 
fault that the act was not performed in time to commence before 183i>, they 
could not hold us to the treaty, but on condition that they all removed in 
that year. They could not avail themselves of their own delay. The 
attorney general seems wholly to overlook the consideration, that we might 
and ought, immediately, during the session of Congress, when the treaty was 
returned, to have ratified it. But the delay of 1834 is solely imputable to 
our own neglect. The supplemental treaty was received in September, 
1833, and no appropriation was made to carry it into effect. during 1834. 
The principle of the Attorney General has no limit. It two years of the 
period of the execution might elapse, why not the three years, or ten years? 

2d. "As the supplemental articles of the 28th of March, 1833, treated it 
as yet in existence, although not then ratified by the President and Senate." Is 
it probable that the Seminole delegation knew whether it was ratified or not, 
or the effect of treating it as an existing treaty? If they considered it had 
been ratified, then they must have considered that the supplemental treaty 
made it binding; but would their considering one way or the other impose 
an obligation on the United States to ratify it? The signing the supplemen- 
tal articles, then, did not make it binding on us or them. 

3d. "As no material change of circumstances is suggested. And who, 
sir, was there to suggest ill It was an ex parte hearing. The Seminoles 
had no delegation there to make suggestions. The only thing before the 
Attorney General seems to have been General Eaton's letter and the treaty. 
But, considering this a treaty between two nations, admitting we have taken 
upon ourselves to be our own interpreters on questions of construction, are 
we entitled also to take upon ourselves to be the exclusive judges of the 
situation of the Seminoles] Had not they at least an equal right to judge 
of their own condition'? Thev certainly had the best means of judging. 
They required no suggestions. They had this r%ht. They exercised it; 
and of their determination we were informed before the ratification of the 
treaty— so well informed of it, that, as I shall show hereafter, it was then 
in contemplation that it might be necessary to use force to compel its execu- 

t] °Mr. Chairman, I have not yet done with the opinion of the Attorney Gene- 
ral I shall now rely upon it as an authority to show that the treaty was not 
obligatory on the Seminoles; 1 shall show that " a material change of circum- 
stances" connected with the question of removal had actually occurred during 
the period which elapsed between the signing and ratification ot the treaty. 
What, sir, was the situation, or rather what were the " circumstances'" of 
the Seminoles when this treaty was signed! They were living separate from 
the Creeks; they had had, from 1802 up to that time, a period of thirty years, 
undisturbed possession of the negroes taken by them from the citizens of 
Georgia. The claim of the people of Georgia was quieted by the Creek 
treaty before mentioned, of 1821. Since that time, the Creeks had set up 
no claim to them. No objection against the re-union of the Creeks and 
Seminoles, according to their former condition, existed, or was known to ex- 
ist, on the part of the Creeks. Under this state of things, the treaty was sign- 
ed'; and it was signed on the basis of the continuance of this state of things; 
that the Seminoles should, as a separate band, be re-united to and form a 
component part of the Creek nation, as one people. But what was the situa- 
tion of the Seminoles— what were their " circumstances" when the treaty- 
was ratified, April 8, 1834! In the mean time, two material circumstances, 
or rather, a change of two material circumstances had occurred. 



14 



1. The Creeks had set up a claim to the negroes and their descenda 
taken by the Seminoles from the people of Georgia prior to 1802 un^ 
pretence that, on the payment of the $250,000 under the treaty of 1821 
became the property o the Creek nation, of which the Seminole band w! ' 
part. Tins has been already sufficiently explained. To the Seminoles 
no consolation that the claim was unjust; for, 

2 The Creeks east had refused to sanction the agreement of the C 
west, allowing to the Seminoles a separate location. ° This was n 
refusal on the part of the Creeks to re-unite with the Seminol s 
they would not re-un.te, but insisted on an amalgamation. It was cert 
an amalgamation would subject this claim to the decision of the Creel 

tPnr t7 h- 16 Seminole f had nothi »g to hope. Sir, this was 
tence. The objection was taken in good faith. You have the opinion ■ 
General Eaton that it was the essential imtise of therr unwiffingnlss 



I he materiality of this change of circumstances is manifest: it was 
sential cause of the reluctance of the Seminoles to emigrate. In fine hi 
dered the execution of the treaty impracticable, consistently with the just r 
of the Seminoles; and had it existed at the date of the treaty, that in , 
not have been made. " 

These objections were communicated to our Government, as I have 
stated, prior to the ratification of the treaty; and so important were V 
deemed, that General Thompson, in his report of the P lst of ZZ y ] 
recommended ''the policy of conclusively quieting the Creek claims, so as to 
leave those Indians (the Seminoles) forever at rest upon the subject 

I will here remark, sir, that General Thompson, in a subsequent leUer, sue 
gests a doubt as to the construction of the treaty of 1832-whether it gave U 
ihe Seminoles the right to a separate location, or obliged them to amalgamate. 
He gave to it the former construction, though he thought it susceptible oft! 

be Z'n t VtT ' 7 bG plaC M m this dilemma: if the latter construction 
be adopted, the location was void, as made contrary to the treaty; if the for- 
^ then we are met by the refusal of the Creeks "east; and in both we are 
S £fi fi ^ a mateml Ch -^ 0f -~nces between the signin, 

On the case as now made, I claim the authority of the opinion of the At- 
torney General as decisive against the validity of the treaty: 

Sidity 11 " 16 ^' ^ S ° me SinCS hS ratmcation > h ^ recognised and affirmed its va- 
But, sir, the Secretary of War, in his communication of the 25th of May 
this day laid on our tables, takes a new ground, with a view of making a case 
within this exception. I did not expect it. Yet, sir, I am prepared to meet 
it. Referring to a transaction of the 23d of April, 1835, he says: 

"In obedience to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 21st instant 
I have the honor to state that this Department has not received any informat o S 
my report of the 9th of February, to the Senate, in answer to their pTsc uTioTof 

tiltti^Tn ?*' S] T" S f USeS l ! lat indUC6d the Seminole Ma » s to comment hoi 
tiht.es, so far as they were known here. The abstract contained in the report I have 
the honor to enclose; and I beg leave, in addition, to state, that it will appear, by refer! 
of £e Sem n'nW S ^ doCument f sub ^tted with it to the Senate, that the complain . 
of the Seminole Indians were investigated by General Clinch, General Thompson, and 
Lieutenant Hams, and that, on a full consideration of the whole matter in open council 
fdl^nTtem!:™ * - ^ SatiSfaCt ''° n ° f the ^ e *> which'was in the 

h "^% theund f ra « ne d chiefs and sub-chief, of the Seminole tribe of Indians, do 
hereby, for ourselves and for our people, voluntarily acknowledge the validity of the 



15 

treaty between the United States and the Seminole nation of Indians, made and con- 
J at Payne's Landing-, on the Ocklewaha river, on the 9th of May, 1832, and the 
treaty between the United States and the Seminole nation of Indians, made and con- 
cluded at Fort Gibson, on the 28th day of March, 1833, by Montford Stokes, H. L. 
Ellsworth, and J. F. Schermerhorn, commissioners on the part of the United States, 
and the delegates of the said nation of Seminole Indians on the part of the iaid nation; 
and we, the said chiefs and sub-chiefs, do, for ourselves and for our people, freely and 
fully assent to the above recited treaties, in all their provisions and stipulations. 
" Done in council at the Seminole agency, this 23d day of April, 1835." 

[Signed by sixteen chiefs and sub-chiefs.] 

When I said that the Secretary had taken a new ground, I did not mean 
iz be understood that these articles were now for the first time published; 
they were inserted in the answer to the call of the Senate of the 9th February. 
But, sir, this is the first declaration, in form, that they were relied on, by the 
Executive, as a confirmation of the treaty, or that any obligation whatever was 
intended to be inferred from them. 

issing by the question whether this act, on the face of it, committed the 
:mlnole tribe, I will now, sir, proceed to state to the committee the circum- 
s under which it was executed; and here, too, I shall confine myself to 
our own story, as recorded in the War Office. 

On the 22d April, 1835, a council of the Seminole chiefs was assembled 
by General Clinch and Captain Harris, of the army, and General Thompson, 
the removing agent. Prior to this, they had been informed of the determina- 
of the Seminoles, with few exceptions, not to execute the treaty; and 
s had been given to General Clinch to execute it by military force. An 
a nt of the proceedings at this council is given in the joint letter of the 
$24th of April. 

On the first day of the council, General Clinch said to the Seminoles: 

; * ! The time of expostulation had passed; that, already, {oo much had been said, and 
r ing had been done; that the influence of the agents of Government, their powers 
sion and argument, had been exhausted, both in public councils and in private 
:ews, to induce them to do right; that we had lingered long enough in the per- 
formance of our duties to have averted, had they been willing, theevils that threatened 
their foolish resistance to the fulfilment of pledges solemnly and fairly made by them; 
and that now it was time to act. He had been sent here to enforce the treaty; he had 
;rs enough to do it, and he would do it. It was the question now, whether they 
lid go of their own accord, or go by force." With this, they were told they might 
:; and until morning was given them to think upon what had been said. "In the 
a of the morning, eight principal chiefs gave their assent to abide by the stipulations 
treaty; five remained opposed to it." 

,^as absent. " General Thompson had, upon the first intimation in the council 
i this day, of further resistance on the part of the chiefs, demanded of the chief Jumper 
her Micanopy (by whom he knew the movements of a number of them to be con- 
trolled) intended to abide by the treaty or not? And when Jumper finally confessed 
that he was authorized to say that Micanopy did not, he (Thompson) promptly declared 
that he no longer considered Micanopy a chief; that his name should be struck from 
the council of the nation; that he should treat all who acted like him in the like manner; 
and that he would neither acknowledge nor do business with him or with any other, as 
a chief, who did not honestly comply with the terms of his engagements; that the door 
was, however, still open to them, if they wished to act honestly." 

" In consequence of this, the names of the five opposing chiefs [Micanopy not present] 
were struck from the council of the nation." 

All this preceded the signing. the agreement; and under this threat and this act 
articles were signed. If an enemy in arms, force may compel the con- 
quered to submit to any terms the conqueror may dictate; but, sir, what can 
be said of this as a transaction between a civilized— a powerful nation — 
and a small band of Indians, with whom we were at peace; and who then 



16 



dared to claim what they now dare to defend? Sir, between civilised nations 
it could not exist a moment. 

But what do you think the Government said of this transaction? They 
rebuked their agent for breaking the five chiefs; they acknowledged that the 
assent of the chiefs to the articles was the effect of the menace. But what 
was said of that menace? Sir, 1 will not rely on witnesses: I shall sustain 
myself only by the record; and here it is. 

The acting Secretary of War, on the 20th May, 1835, in reply to it, 
says: 

"From your report, it appears that eight of the principal chiefs have signified, in 
■writing, their determination to abide by all the stipulations of the treaties of Payne's 
Landing and Fort Gibson, and that five of the principal chiefs refused to acknowledge 
them. The assent of the chiefs is to be attributed, it would seem, to the declaration of 
General Clinch — that, if they declined to remove voluntarily, they would be removed 
by force. The President approves of this declaration, upon a full consideration of the 
circumstances under which it was made." 

And what were those circumstances? " The Seminoles had trifled sufficiently 
long with the most solemn treaty obligations, to which they had, in the first 
instance, acceded, with a full understanding of their character, and the conse- 
quences of which they had had, during three years, full opportunity to per- 
ceive and appreciate." 

And this is not all, sir. Mr. Thompson, in his letter of the 18th June, in reply, 
states that this declaration had been before repeated, under the authority of 
the Department. 

Such, sir, was the arrangement in open council, which, it is alleged, was 
made to the mutual satisfaction of the parties! 

II. That the Government has attempted to enforce the treaty, in violation 
of its own construction. 

The construction to wjiich I refer is contained in the Attorney General's 
opinion — that the Seminoles were to be removed in the years 1835, 1836, 
and 1837, instead of the years stipulated in the treaty. 

In violation of this construction, the Government have insisted to the Sem- 
inoles that they should all remove in the year 1835. 

General Thompson, in his letter of the 28th October, 1834, states that he 
told the Seminoles, " 1 have come from the President to tell you" — " that you 
must prepare to remove by the time the cold weather of the winter shall 
have passed away." The proposition was general. No intimation was 
given that they were to be allowed a longer time. 

In accordance with the principles of the subsequent opinion of the Attor- 
ney General, the Secretary of War wrote to General Thompson, distinctly 
stating that the part of the Seminoles required by the treaty to remove in 
1833, should remove in 1835; and the plain inference from this letter was, 
that the remainder should remove in 1836-'37. General Thompson, in his 
letter of the 28th December, states that this letter was read in council to the 
Seminoles. But how was it understood by the Seminoles? Was it made the 
basis of any proposition? No, sir; the language to them was the same as 
had been held to them in October. He says that in council " I read vour 
speech, explained it, and enforced it by such considerations as occurred to 
me; of which, however, my talk to them in council in October last may, in 
substance, be considered a transcript. I repeated what I had told them be- 
fore, that they would be compelled by force to remove, if they did not do so 
willingly," &c. In his letter of the 27th January following, he states, " I 
have heretofore (when?) submitted to the Secretary of War some reasons 



I 



17 



why the Indians should be removed all at the same time, by watery And 
finally, on the 9th March, General Clinch states to the adjutant general, "In 
all the communications I have had with the chiefs, I have held out the idea, 
that as the three years stipulated in the treaty was about expiring, the whole 
nation would be required to remove this spring." 

The President's talk of the 16th February, 1835, is also in accordance 
with the opinion of the Attorney General — that the Seminoles were entitled 
to the years 1835,-'36,-'37 in which to remove. 

It appears from the joint letter of Clinch, Thompson, and Harris, of the 
24th April, 1835, that this talk was read in council on the 22d. And how 
too was this understood by the Seminoles] Was it made the basis of any 
proposition? It was not. This, sir, is the proper place to notice the residue 
of the statement of the Secretary of War of the 25th May last — that "the 
officers charged with the arrangement of this affair [the arrangement of the 
23d of April, 1835,] then made an agreement with the Indians by which 
they were all to be removed during the succeeding January. These pro- 
ceedings were approved by the President, and the matter was considered as 
definitively and satisfactorily arranged;" — "and that whatever they [the objec- 
tions to removal] were, the above agreement put an end to them, and left to 
the Seminoles but one course to pursue, which was an entire removal in Jan- 
uary, 1836." 

The committee will call to mind the occurrences in the council of the 22d 
and 23d of April, when it is alleged this agreement was made. It opened 
with the declaration of General Clinch, that " now was the time to act; 
" that he had been sent here to enforce the treaty; that he had warriors 
" enough to do it, and he would do it. It was the question now, whether they 
" would go of their own accord, or go by force." That until morning 
time was given them to think of it; that in the morning, the names of five op- 
posing chiefs were stricken from the council of the nation; and that, under 
this menace of instant force, the eight chiefs signed what has been called 
" the arrangement to the mutual satisfaction of both parties," This arrange- 
ment purported merely to be an assent to the stipulation of the treaty. It 
was silent as to the time of removal. From what, then, is the assent of the 
chiefs to remove in January inferred? I again refer to our own story: " The 
friendly chiefs, whilst assenting to go, begged they might not be hurried away; 
they did not expect to go this year; the season was far advanced, and they 
wanted time to gather their crops, and settle their little business." Sir, they 
begged for a reprieve from the immediate execution of the sentence, and that 
reprieve was granted. The letter states: " Under these circumstances, we 
deemed it our duty to say to the friendly chiefs, that we would give their peo- 
ple until the 1st of December to reap their crops, and to complete their pre- 
parations; but that as soon after that time as we could make ourselves ready, 
every Indian in Florida would be started upon his journey to the nezv 
country." 

Such is the agreement which it is now insisted put an end to the objec- 
tion of the Indians to their removal, and left them but one course to adopt — 
an entire removal in January, 1836. If the proposition was ever made by 
our agent for a removal in 1835,-'6,-'7, other than I have stated, I have not 
been, able to find the record of it. 

III. The Government have attempted to execute the treaty by an act of 
war, before any act of hostility was committed by the Seminoles. 

On examining the correspondence, I find, sir, that the menace of force has 
accompanied all our overtures, even prior to the ratification of the treaty. 
2 



i 



On the 21st of February, 1834, the Secretary of War, jn a letter to Gov- 
ernor Duval, uses this language: 

"The Government uses no compulsion with the India ns. It is left to their free 
choice, in the first case, to go or stay; but after that choice is fully and freely made, 
and they have obligated themselves to remove, the Government wilfemploy the neces- 
sary measures to enforce their removal." 

In the council of the 23d of April, the Serainoles were told, " You must go 
to the west; your father the President will compel you to go." 

The talk of the Secretary of War of the 22d of November, 1834, says, 
" The President has directed a body of soldiers to be sent into your country." 

This letter was preceded by General Thompson's letter, (of the 28th Oc- 
tober,) saying, that " a full view of all the circumstances leaves me without 
doubt that these deluded people are determined to resist the execution 
of the treaty." 

On the 24th November, 1834, orders were given to march troops to Forts 
Brooke and King, and for General Clinch to co-operate with them. 

On the 28th December, General Thompson says, that at the council of 
the 26th, " I repeated what I had told them before, that they would be com- 
pelled by force to remove, should they not do so willingly." ' 

On the 27th of January, 1835, General Thompson suggested to the De- 
partment that the military force in Florida was insufficient. 

In the President's talk of the 16th February, 1835, the Indians were told, 
" I have ordered a large military force sent among you, &c. &c; listen to 
the voice of friendship, you will go quietly; but should you listen to bad 
birds that are flying about you, and refuse to remove, I have then directed the 
commanding officer to remove you by force. This will be done," &c. 

On the 8th March, Governor Eaton requested General Clinch to delay the 
execution of the orders until he should receive an answer to his letter to the 
Secretary of War of that date. 

On the 26th March, the Attorney General gave his opinion; and on the 
14th April, the Secretary of War wrote to General Clinch, that "if they 
(the Seminoles) all be willing to remove this year, it will certainly be better 
to remove them; but, in that case, let a written agreement be drawn up, stat- 
ing the reasons of the delay, their entire readiness to remove by the time, 
and go in a body, and by such route as you and General Thompson shall 
think best for them and most economical to the Government; but if they are 
opposed to this, and will generally agree quietly to remove by the 1st of March, 
or as soon as arrangements can be made, they may be suffered to remain until 
that time. Should the Seminoles, however, peremptorily decline to pledge 
themselves peaceably to remove next season, you will then proceed to carry 
into effect the instructions heretofore given." 

This order produced the menace of Clinch, in the council of the 22d of 
April, " that he had warriors enough," &c. &c. 

On the 20th May, the Secretary of War, in reply to their joint letter of 
the 24th, wrote to Thompson, Clinch, and Harris* (referring to the letter 
above, of the 14th April,) " If, as stated in that letter, the Indians will gene- 
rally agree quietly to remove by the time you have designated, and will sig- 
nify their agreement in writing in the manner therein pointed out, no objections 
will be made to the postponement. But the Indians must understand that 
their removal will be enforced in conformity with the treaty." 

About the 3d June, Powell, (Oseola,) one of the most bold, daring, and 
intrepid chiefs in his nation, on account of his insolence, was put in 



19 



j rons _p L1t an Indian chief in irons! On his release, lie appeared friend- 
\y — w ho that knows the Indian character could rely on such appearance? 

The next unfortunate occurrence was on the 18th June, when seven white 
men, meeting five Indians, took away dieir rifles, flogged four of them with 
cowhides, and, other Indians coming to their relief, a fight ensued, in which 
three white men were wounded and one Indian was killed. Our officer 
demanded the Indian aggressors; and, what is more extraordinary, they 
were delivered up. 

On the 11th August, the Seminoles killed a soldier, while carrying the 
mail, in retaliation for the Indian killed by the whites, and declared themselves 
satisfied. This was regarded in its proper light by our officer — as a mere act 
of retaliation. 

On the 30th of November, the Seminoles killed one of their chiefs, who 
had been friendlv to their emigration; and immediately all the friendly Indi- 
ans, to the number of four or five hundred, fled to Fort Brooke for protec- 
tion. This act was deemed decisive that the Indians would resist their re- 
moval by force. It was now, sir, no longer a question of menace. It was a 
question of war — of the employing a military force to execute a treaty. I 
characterize the act by the term applied to it by General Eaton in advance. 
In his letter of the 8th of March, he says, in reference to the execution of the 
treaty, " the employing a military force will be an act of tear, and," further, 
" the Indians will embody and fight in their defence." 

Our military force, consisting "of twelve companies, immediately concen- 
trated; and, on the 23d, a corps of two hundred men attempted to march 
through what might then be called the enemy's country. Thus, we had march- 
ed a military force into their country, for the purpose, repeatedly declared 
to the Seminoles, of removing them by force; and thus was the act of war 
completed before a single hostile act was committed by the Seminoles. The 
Seminoles, fulfilling the prediction of General Eaton, "embodied and fought 
in their defence;" and the fate of the unfortunate Dade was told by only 
three of his men. Here, sir, I leave the war at its commencement. How 
the battle has fared since, 1 leave to others to say. 

It is proper, however, and it is just, to say, that the administration here 
must necessarily judge of the state of things in Florida through the represent- 
ations of their agents on the spot; that, from the first question of the execution 
of the treaty, alf our officers and agents there strongly recommended the exe- 
cution of the treaty by a military force; and, so far as it was intended to pro- 
duce an effect as a menace, though a policy of a doubtful character, it might, 
in a just cause, be excused, if not justified. But, sir, if the question I have 
asked, Is our quarrel just? be answered in the negative, we must stand as 
the aggressors, without cause and without justification. 

But, sir, take it for granted that the treaty was obligatory, and that we had 
only insisted on its just execution; the question then arises, has the Exec- 
utive the power to execute a treaty by an act of war? It is the duty of the 
President to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, but by such 
means, and by such only, as the constitution or the laws have provided. To 
Congress it belongs to make all laws necessary and proper for the execution 
of the special grants conferred upon Congress, and of all other powers vested by 
the constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Depart- 
ment or officer thereof. The execution of a treaty by force, or attempting 
to obtain satisfaction by force, is virtually an act of war; and this power is 
vested in Congress alone. 

In regard to o'ur own citizens, treaties are the supreme law of the land, 



20 



and are executed as such; but, as between the parties, thev are matters of com- 
pact, in which each party judges for itself, and seeks its remedies under the 
laws of nations; and the exclusive right which we have assumed to judge for 
both parties defines our power, but not our right. This, however, cannot 
change the character of treaties with the Indian tribes, and reduce them from 
compacts to laws. 

The action of the Executive, in the cases of the Seminoles and the Creeks, 
though directly opposite, is within the same principle. In the case of the 
Seminoles, an attempt was made to execute a treaty by an act of war. In 
the case of the Creeks, the attempt is to violate a treaty by an act of the 
same character. J 

I forbear Mr. Chairman, to comment on a variety of minor considerations 
which may have had an influence in favor of or against the voluntary removal 
of the Seminole*, or m adding to the excitement produced by the principal 
facts m the case-the desire of the whites to retain or to purchase their 
slaves and to obtain their lands per fas ant nefas, operating on the one hand 
to obstruct their removal, and on the other to induce their immediate 
removal by force. 

What, Mr. Chairman, may be, if not the probable, the possible effect of the 
adoption of the amendment of the committee? It will be considered by the 
Executive as an authority, as a warrant, for the removal of the whole Creek 
nation by force. Is there not danger that it may excite the whole nation, or 
a large portion, to make common cause with the Seminoles? Thev will take 
courage from their success. They will, to use the language of General 
Eaton, take up the tomahawk in despair." It may be a war to them of ex- 
ermination, and to us of great peril. What are your present relations with 
Clierokees-atribewklvioceyoyr first treaty with them, has never 
taken the scalp of a white man— a tribe which has borne and forborne? But 
sir, have you done any thing of late calculated to prolong that forbearance? 

with them, by which we have fulfilled our longing desires of acquiring a cession 
of all their lands. 1 learn also, from other sources, that this'treaty ha been 
made with one-tenth of the tribe against the remonstrance of the remainder. 
What s.ate of feeling will grow out of this, it is impossible to say. I hone 
sir they will acquiesce in the treaty, if not in its justice— fully believU 
tnat, as circumstanced, their happiness will be promoted by their removal 
but sir, they judge for themselves. The force of the Indians east of 
the Mississippi is competent to much mischief. In a war, which may be 
come a war of extermination is it wise to provoke new enemies to ''raise 
the tomahawk in despair » You may probably rate the force of the Semi- 
noles at 1 oOO; the Creeks at 3,500; the Cherokees at 3,000; the Choctaws 
and Chickasaws, and others that are vagrant remnants of tribes at 2 000 
more-a force of 10,000 warriors. The modern Indian wars of the South 
are no t of the character of those of Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, of for' 
tter days Then, on the attack, the settlers flew to the rescue; now sir 
the . flight is in any other direction. Causes over which individual; perha ' 
have no control, have given an entire different character to our defence And 

'LrrL n ° ? an ? ge V- hat i Bn In r ian War nmy COnnect i^elf with a war of ano- 
her haracter Sir, those who are the most interested will judge in what 

realities apprehensions. I trust in God they may 'never become 

™l U \ S lu W K at iS P r ,°P, osed t0 be do » e with the Indians? To remove them 
with all their hostile feelings— to remove whipped Indians to the west of Mis- 



•21 



souri and Arkansas, and plant them there! What have you gained, but to 
change the scene, and to increase your danger? You place them there to ex- 
cite the surrounding tribes to war on your whole western frontier — tribes who 
can bring into the battle 30,000 warriors, and sustain them, too. They can 
choose their point of attack, and retreat at pleasure, where you cannot follow, 
to return to the attack in some other quarter — tribes, too, which can be sup- 
plied with arms by a neighboring nation, which is not, perhaps, now in the 
best state of feelings towards you. Grant, sir, that these are mere possible 
dangers; yet should we not be put on our guard even against remote contin- 
gencies'? Why should we add further cause for increasing the hostilities which 
now exist] Why continue even these hostilities, if they can be avoided? Must 
we continue the Seminole war for another campaign? What new laurels are to 
be won? It is asked, is it practicable to end the war without further slaugh- 
ter? Sir, on this subject I rely entirely on the opinion of those better ac- 
quainted with the character of' the southern Indians than myself; and, from 
the opinions of those entitled to confidence, I am satisfied that it is practica- 
ble, and that while our army is in summer quarters, the war might be ended. 
Sir, the experiment is worth the attempt; if we fail, nothing is lost. 

I cannot but recur to the. period when the system of removal commenced; 
when the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bell) introduced the bill of 1830. 
Predictions were then made, which were treated as impossibilities; but, sir, 
they will soon be a part of our recorded history. 



APPENDIX. 



Tallahassee, March 8, 1835. . 
Sir: I have received your letter, with its enclosures, relative to removing the 
Seminole Indians, under the provisions of the treaty of 1832, but which was 
not ratified until 1834. I pray you, does not this circumstance raise a doubt 
whether, by strict rule, the treaty can be considered valid and binding? Our 
Indian compacts must be construed, and be controlled, by the rules which 
civilized people practise: because, in all our actions with them, we have put 
the treaty-making machinery in operation precisely in the same way, and to 
the same extent, that it is employed with the civilized Powers of Europe. The 
rule practised upon by us has been, and is, that the ratification shall take place 
within either an agreed time or in a reasonable time. 

When Florida was ceded, in 1819, the Cortes failefd to exchange ratifica- 
tions within the prescribed time, and afterwards, at a subsequent session, it was 
assented to by the Spanish Cortes. The sense of this Government was, 
that the first ratification made by the Senate was inoperative: and again the 
subject was submitted, by Mr. Monroe, for the action and approval of the 
Senate. This appears to me to be a precedent which runs parallel with this 
Indian compact. It says, one-third shall remove the first year, viz: as early as 
practicable in 1833, and" one-third in the next, and the next, 1834 and '35, Now, 
until 1834, when the ratification took place, the treaty was a dead letter. It 
is in their power now to plead and to say, we were ready in 1833 and ? 34, and, 
hearing nothing of your determination, we had a right to suppose that you did 
not mean to stand by the treaty, and accordingly our minds have changed. 
With civilized nations, I think the plea would be available: and, if so, the In- 
dian should have the benefit of it. 

W^ere these people willing voluntarily to remove, (though such seems not 
to be the case.) the whole difficulty would be cured, and no evil could arise. 
But as military force is about to be resorted to, it is material that the Govern- 



22 



went, before making such appeal, be satisfied that right and justice are on their 
side; and that they are not engaged in the execution of a treaty which f void 
is no part of the law of the land. I feel so strongly the force Tof these oblet 
tions and am so desirous that General Jackson shall avoid every thing of sup- 
posed error, that I shall to-day, unauthorized as I am, write to General 
Clinch ana request him not to act with force, until he shall hear a%in from 
you. This he may probably do; and hence the propriety of your col der * 
my suggestion, and advising him as early as possible. considering 
bhould you at Washington, who have books to resort to, to solve the doubt 
Im&^T****' T* ^, the conclusi ™ that it is tenable, why hen ho 
subject of the removal, and the manner of it, are unnecessary to be examined" 
An attempt must then be made to go into some new negotiation . If : 1here be 
noth,„g , n the proffered ejections, then the best mode Sf starting them away 



The emp oying a military force will be an act of war, and the Indians will 
embody and fight m their defence. In this event, you will want such an m 
posing force as shall overawe resistance. The few companies you have ordered 
will not produce this result. They will serve but to begin the fHit and 
to awaken angry feeling so that, in the sequel, the militia w l ha?e to be 
called, which w,lf end ,n the butchery of these miserable people Send a 
strong imposing regular force, which can be commanded and prevented from 
doing more than actually is needful to be done? and then that fore iurif 
™? M Ctl h § and ^ r Nanng, may do much. But send only a handful of men 
and difficulties will come upon you. ' 

The next thing will be to have suitable transports, of seven or eHit feet 
draught lying at Tampa Bay, well provisioned, to receive th in; for sure as 
you seek a passage oyer and. they will desert into swamps, and elude you 
pursuits Tney are afraid to go by land. Bad men will raise up false lecoums 
arrest and throw them in jail, whereby to enforce payment. The fate of the 
chief, Blunt last year at New Orleans, they fear will be theirs Takm g them 
by water to the Mississippi river, and there placing them in boats, with bos™ 
tive orders not to land or stop at any town or city, will prevent this disturb 
Ba C vto°t p e Bdi. n 1 l ' ee W S 0W A ***. .thevoyaJ'can be" made from Tampa 
Would amoun? to ' * mU C0St t0 what a land ^avel northwardly 

There is another difficulty in the minds of these people, and it is this- A 
separate tract out of the Creek lands has been set apart for the.V homes There 
is a ratified treaty in your office, made by General Stokes, Ell wo th and 
Schermerhorn with the Creeks, which authorizes the Seminole location W 
nego tiatmjg with the Indians last year, at Washington, I understood that he 

whi^ thPv wJ ered ir 1,S ? Ct ' ha( l SGnt word * th « Seminole band haN 
while they were willing to receive them in their limits as a portion of their 
nation they would not suffer them to enjoy any separate allotment of their so . 
1 his, too, has intimidated them, and, I dare say, is the essential cause of the r 
reluctance to go off. To cure this, either the Creeks west should be gotten to 
say that the allotment made shall be for the exclusive separate use of the 
Florida Indians; or the latter should be prevailed upon, for some adequate 
compensation, to agree to go and amalgamate with the Creeks. Anmher mod^e 
of prevailing on these people to remove, would be, to give orders to the trooos 
to prevent them from raising corn this year: this is almost as severe a r emedy 
as employing your bayonets. But the effect will be, that, towards autumn 

Ihe question! 1 '" 5 ^ ^ t0 d ^ T ° § ° ° r StaWe < would then bJ 
General Thompson was here a few days since, and found a letter for him 
from the Department. He should not be addressed here, but at the Semi - 
note agency, distant from this place, I believe, one hundred and fifty miles 
Ifijs Indian question of removal is one that should be managed with *reaf 

hllJZT\ C&re /! h&t ^ e enem j e8 in S°?S ress . ever ready to find faultSr 
have no just and tenable ground on which to rest their rumors. Tread cau- 
tiously, then. The people here want the lands on. which they reside, and they 
wnl urge a removal,/^ aut nefas; and the Big Swamp, which in the treaty is 

KD 128 



23 

declared to be the first of their country to be vacated, is of high repute, and 
it is that on which the eyes of speculators are} fixed- But whether they shall 
have it this year or the next, or the next thereafter, is ot less importance to the 
country, than that any thing shall be done calculated to impair the character 
of the Government for justice, and for equitable and fair dealing. Whence 
the necessity of any speedy removal? Presently, it left alone, these Indians 
will go of their own accord; because they cannot avoid it. To stay, is to starve? 
and nature and its demands will soon tell them more, and better, and more 
convincing things on this subject, than you and the President can write. 
TVn they will go, and so without any interruption to the quiet and harmony 
of the country. Now, with all your efforts, and the army to aid you, they 
could not be carried off and gotten to their western homes before June or 
July. Then, no crop could be raised, and for two years they will be without 
provisions. The preferred and preferable course, I think, will be to send 
amongst them active and intelligent men to court them to what is right, in 
the hope that, during the year, their minds may be so prepared as to be in- 
duced to depart during November; at least, that they may reach their homes 
in time to raise corn the succeeding year. On the whole, to conclude a tiresome 
letter, I offer this advice: avoid the exercise of force as long as possible; and 
let it be the only, the last sad alternative; and then let not, by any means, the 
militia be applied to— they will breed mischief. 

Withtgreat respect, r ^ t 

* J. H. EATON. 

Lewis Cass, Secretary of War. 



Tallahassee, March 8, 1835. 

Sir: I have received from the Secretary of War a letter asking me to 
suggest to him any views I might entertain as to the removal ot the > Seminole 
Indians Enclosed in his communication was a copy of a letter addressed by 
you to the adjutant general, dated 22d January, 1835; a reply to it by the 
Secretary, of the 16th February; with a talk from the President, also dated 16th 
February. In reply, I have offered my opinions freely and frankly; and, 
amongst other things suggested, whether the treaty of 1832 be not void, for 
want of timely ratification. If this be so, it will be unfortunate that the mili- 
tary force of the country be actively employed. 

In ray letter I have said, "by the next mail (unauthorized) I shall write to 
General Clinch, and suggest to him not to employ force towards the removal, 
until he shall again hear from you. He may, perhaps, under all the circum- 
stances, accord to my request; and hence the necessity of your speedily inform- 
ing him of the course he shall pursue. » If, under the orders given, you shall 
think you can practise forbearance until the Secretary is again heard from I 
shalfbe glad; because my opinion is, there is greater safety in the course Biu 
of this you alone are to judge, under the responsibility of the orders which have 
been forwarded to you. 

Very respectfully, J, H. EATON. 

To General D. L, Clinch, 




<$> 0 ^^^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
O * o . , Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: March 2010 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEAOER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111' 



